BSG Fans Rejoice!!

SciFi.com is broadcasting ten 2.5 minute Battlestar Galactica "webisodes" leading up to the October 6th season premiere to whet the fan's appetites. Titled "The Resistance", each part will be launched every tues and thurs for the rest of the month and the first week of October.

Part One is here. Click the link that says "The Resistance: Part One" in the archives. After it runs, it will automatically advance to Part Two, which premiered today.

Very reminiscent of Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. Cool stuff!

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Lovin' Every Minute Of It

The NY Mets magic number is now 8. Well on their way to de-throning the Atlanta Braves, the team is scheduled to play one more series in Turner Field starting Sept. 27th. The Mets will have wrapped up the division title long before then, however. It would have been interesting to have them clinch the division during that final run through Atlanta's house, but...eh...oh well.

The NY Daily Post has an article that quotes Braves pitcher John Smoltz as saying "we're not a below-.500 team".

66-73? 20.5 games out of first?

Yes you are, Johnny. Yes, you most certainly are. Not easy to take, is it.

Have a nice winter.

Posted by: Gary at 01:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Captain Kirk Opts Out Of Space Ride Offer

William Shatner was offered a ticket as one of the first passenger's to travel on Virgin Galactic's two-and-a-half hour space flight scheduled for 2008. His response was priceless:

"I'm interested in man's march into the unknown but to vomit in space is not my idea of a good time. Neither is a fiery crash with the vomit hovering over me."

And on that note, more Trek fun.

Star Trek "Cribs" at the "Spock Casa":

h/t: Jonah Goldberg

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

You Can't Buy This Kind Of Promotion

Cry-baby Clintonistas (and even Bubba himself) are screaming for ABC to edit their mini-series "The Path To 9/11" or pull it outright. By going apoplectic about the broadcast, they are amplifying the attention given to it and will no doubt spur interest for potential viewers who might otherwise have been unaware of it.

This is a good thing.

Democrats are gnashing their teeth over what they see as an attempt to smear their hero, President Clinton. It is important for Americans to watch this docu-drama, but not to assign blame for the 9/11 attacks. There's plenty of that to go around.

No, as Hugh Hewitt (who has seen it) points out, the most important reason to watch is to remind us about what it is we are fighting against and how serious the threat is. Those who now howl about the tarnishing of the Clinton legacy fail to grasp this:

Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.

In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.

It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with [FBI Agent John] O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.

Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.

"It is all about them" - yeah, that pretty much summarizes the Clintonista perspective. It's not about national security, it's about trying to preserve some kind of legacy for the man who "feels your pain".

"If only those attacks had come on my watch, it would've been my big moment in history. And imagine all the grieving ladies that I could've groped...er...I mean hugged."

Former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who is now the head of the William J. Clinton Foundation, had this to say:

"It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

Guess he forgot to tell Michael Moore.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

A Peek Into What Dem Control Would Be Like...Priceless!

Allahpundit links a great ad for for the Donk's future newsletter - "America Weakly".

H/T: the Llamas (who wisely advise that you keep your mouth free of food and drink while viewing) ;-)

UPDATE (5:15pm):
Ha! That was from the RNC for real. LOL!! Love it.

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush Throws Down The Gauntlet

This is going to throw the Dems for a loop. And yet, you just had to know something like this was coming. The President just gave a major speech detailing many of the activities that his Administration has been engaged in to prevent further attacks since 9/11.

In other words, it was no accident (though none of his supporters thought so) that we haven't been attacked since.

But here's the kicker: in response to the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision on military tribunals, he is having Sen. Majority Leader Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell introduce legislation for Congress to explicitly authorize their creation. Dems, who've been going around thumping their chests and saying how safe America would be if they were in charge, are now going to have to put up or shut up.

Mario Loyola at NRO's The Corner explains:

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

This is the 2006 equivalent of the Homeland Security Bill of 2002. Democrats will head into a mid-term election either look blatantly weak and obstructionist on national security or pissing off their Moonbat base.

"DAMMIT! He did it AGAIN!"

Can't wait to see the responses from the Donks. Heh.

h/t: Michelle Malkin (who liveblogged the speech) and, of course, MFSIL who first emailed me about the speech!

Posted by: Gary at 03:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, For The Love Of God!

You see this?

Yes, it's a sculpture of the first turd squeezed out by the spawn of TomKat!

Here's the caption to this A/P gem:

This photo released by the Capla Kesting Gallery in August 2006 shows a sculpture purportedly cast from 19-week old Suri Cruise's first bowel movement. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes finally put Hollywood at ease by publishing the first photo of their daughter Suri, four months after her birth, in Vanity Fair magazine's October issue.

I don't know about you but this doesn't put me at ease. Not in the least! It freaking creeps me out!

Posted by: Gary at 02:21 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Selective Poll Results

In the week leading up to Labor Day and continuing into this week, we've all noticed the MSM going into full campaign mode (now that McCain-Feingold has officially muzzled free speech from other sources), beating the drum that the GOP is in deep, deep doo-doo because of an angry, disaffected electorate.

The electorate is pretty surly these days, true. But the part they've been leaving out is that there is absolutely no polling data to suggest that voters are ready to turn over control of Congress to the Dems. Granted, the GOP seems to be going out of its way to anger its base and turn off everyone else. But the Democrats offer no reasons for voters to move in their direction.

Here's the bottom line: Voters are disaffected. What else is new? And in different times that would be enough reason to expect a change of control in Congress. But these are dangerous times - serious times. And with the safety of our nation so much at risk, swing voters may look at the Republicans and hold their nose. But when they look at the Democrats they hold their stomachs.

Dems hold an advantage in polls focusing on the generic Congressional ballot. Can anyone remember a time when this was not the case heading into an election? And how many times in the past ten years have those poll advantages led to Democrats taking over either chamber of Congress? Republicans can still do a lot to screw themselves up. And as I've said all year, the GOP will lose seats in the House and the Senate. It would be historically unprecendented if they didn't.

But as long as Democrats keep taking the bait and talking about national security, the uncertainty and uneasiness of handing the reigns over to the party that thinks we should release all the detainees at Gitmo so they can try and kill Americans again, eliminate surveillance programs that monitor the activities of terrorists, repeal the Patriot Act and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq will make the possibility of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi replacing "minority" with "majority" in their titles highly unlikely.

Posted by: Gary at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

NY Times On Plame Debacle: Fitz Or Get Off The Pot

Even the Gray Lady sees the writing on the wall:

Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutorÂ’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. CheneyÂ’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.

ItÂ’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course.

Personally, I'm all for a new investigation. An investigation into a special prosecutor who knowingly pursued a bogus witch-hunt when he knew the answers the whole time. Or maybe one into Richard Armitage and Colin Powell who sat on their hands and let this silliness drag on while it distracted their Commander-In-Chief during a time of war.

At the very least, the White House needs to call out Patrick Fitzgerald for the partisan hack he is. And they should do it every day for the next two months.

h/t: Captain Ed

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Petulant Media Prima Donna Has Another Hissy Fit

NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory got into another "I know you are but what am I" tussle with the White House Press Secretary yesterday. Only this time around it wasn't Gregory beating up on the fat kid.

No, this time he pulled his "assertiveness training" routine with Tony Snow.

Big mistake.

Gregory could usually get former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's goat. But the Snowman wasn't having any of it. When he suggested that Gregory's question was a nice summary of "the Democratic point of view" on Iraq, the White House Correspondent lost his cool (not that he really possesses any). Part of the exchange:

MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.

Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.

Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.

Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.

MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --

Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

No who's getting who's goat?

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Joe Lieberman Reloaded

Joe's website has been relaunched. And like Ned Lamont, he has an official blog - complete with snarky-assed comments from moonbat trolls.

Posted by: Gary at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Dems: "We'll Make You Safer. No...Really."

I could link stuff from Wuzzadem.com every day of the week. But that would make me lazy. Wouldn't it?

Some posts, however, are too priceless to pass up. Like this one. Enjoy!

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Left-wing Blogosphere Losing Their Minds Over ABC's "The Path To 9/11"

First of all let me say that I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the Disney-owned network ABC would actually present a miniseries that would paint the Clinton Adminstration is such an unfavorable light. I can only chalk it up a stronger drive for ratings (the big "Manning Bowl" NFL premiere will be airing the same night on NBC) overcoming a desire to whitewash the former President's deficiencies in pursuing the threat of terrorism during the 1990's.

Yeah, we can all play Monday morning quarterbacks since 9/11. But the film's scrutiny of the Clinton-Albright-Berger-Reno crew has more to do with highlighting their mindset that terrorists should be treated like criminals rather than combatants - a mindset that, by the way, that is still ingrained in the leadership of the Democrat party five years after the attack. The facts of history are difficult to ignore. Having swept the decks for the Democrats by ending the Cold War, Republican Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush freed up President Clinton and his Administration to deal with other threats to national security.

As Dick Morris likes to point out (and this guy knows first-hand), Clinton had no desire to even acknowledge the threat of terrorism - from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the Khobar Towers to the U.S.S. Cole. Why? Because the issue didn't poll well. The fact is, we could have had Bin Laden handed to us on a silver platter. We declined the offer. We could have connected the dots that would have led to the thwarting of the plan that was executed on 9/11 - that is, if the Clinton Justice Department hadn't prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information (remember the "Gorelick memo"?).

Now Democrats - who already have a credibility problem in the area of National Security - are losing it because they're being forced to confront the truth. And, sadly for them, it comes at a time when voters are beginning to pay attention to the coming mid-term elections. Why are they so determined to discredit this mini-series?

Jason Apuzzo at Libertas explains:

Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton Administration’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center. And Sandy Berger won’t be able to stuff this film down his pants; the film shows him hanging-up on the CIA and the Northern Alliance right as they were calling him for approval to get bin Laden. Nor will Madeline Albright’s faux-European hauteur be sufficient to cover her shame in helping botch a missile strike against bin Laden - something else depicted in the film. As for Clinton, the film makes him look strikingly bafoonish (merely by intercutting actual footage of him), and captures the legalistic, ‘depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is-is’/CYA culture that defined his administration.

The folks at that blog are among the few who've actually seen "The Path To 9/11". The review by Libertas' Govindini Murty is here.

Who specifically is doing all the moaning and groaning? The usual suspects, of course. And rather than watch the film and try to rebut it with facts, they're screaming for it not to be aired at all.

Funny, I thought Liberals were against censorship. Whatever.

Now, my Lefty friends will all scream about that miniseries about the Reagans that got pulled off the air by CBS back in 2003 because Conservatives squawked about it. Okay, well the difference there is that the writer of that little hatchet-job admitted in the end that almost all of the events and the dialogue that he wrote were pretty much made up (but he was sure that's what they were really like).

This project was based on the results of the 9/11 Commission and is rooted in facts that are on the record (despite Sandy Burglar's attempt to shove the evidence down his socks and pants).

The fact that "The Path To 9/11" evokes such outrage and frenzy among the nutroots indicates how close it hits to the mark. For those who want to be sure, I say watch it and judge for yourself.

It's airing Sunday, September 10th and 11th on ABC from 8pm to 11pm each night.

Oh, and for those huge Giants and Colts fans out there? Just set those VCRs, DVRs and TiVos!

Posted by: Gary at 02:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 733 words, total size 5 kb.

Anti-Semitism Rife At MoveOn.org's Web Forum

The NY Post reports this morning about how the forum portion of LoseOn.org's website is riddled with Jewish slurs against CT Senator Joe Lieberman.

"We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas," ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.

"Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content," Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman's campaign.

Foxman cited examples from the site's Action Forum, including "media owning Jewish pigs," "Zionazis," a reference to the senator as "Jew Lieberman" and the question, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?"

Foxman wrote, "Those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate, and to speak out against it, as loudly as possible."

LoseOn.org's executive director, Eli Pariser, was...ahem...unavailable for comment, though he did post a statement distancing himself from the forum users.

If Pariser is serious that he disapproves of these offensive comments, will he delete them? Imagine the howling on the Left over that one. Cries of "censorship" would reverberate throughout the blogosphere.

Anti-Semitism has been a major component of the the Leftist nutroots for some time. Just browse through the comments on any given post at some of the more prominent Lefty blog sites (don't even get me started on Dummycratic Underground.com). But LoseOn.org is a 527 organization that funnels big bucks to Democrats.

Democrat Senate candidate Ned Lamont owes the bulk of his success to their efforts.

Now, wither Ned? Will he make a statement denouncing the content on the site? It would be tough. After all, so many of his supporters like to push these neocon conspiracy theories ("it's the Jooos!!"). And when confronted by a racist photoshopped pic of Joe Lieberman in blackface that was created by Jane (firedoglake.com) Hamsher last month, Lamont's response was "Blogs? What Blogs?".

Lamont's opponents should not let up on this one.

Read excellent commentary from The Moose here.

More on this abhorrent phenomena at FrontPage Magazine.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

Ex-Donkey Reloaded

Yeah, that's right. Gary's back.

No, I wasn't monkey-fishing, stalking Diane Lane or any of those other choices. I was engaged in a much more fulfilling activity. I was spending time with the four most important people in my life - my wife and three sons.

I'll go into a little more detail later, but man it looks like I missed some interesting shit while I was away.

I want to give a special "shout out" to the four guest bloggers who kept the fires burning without burning down the house (although my liquor cabinet is considerably bare since I left).

Thank you Pam M. and GroovyVic, my fellow MuNuvians from Blogmeister U.S.A. and FiddleDeeDee, respectively.

Thank you, Wordsmith from Sparks From the Anvil. You've opened my eyes to the treasure trove of often-odd video that is "YouTube". Now I just need to check and see how much bandwidth that stuff eats up. ;-)

Thank You, Skye. Her current site Midnight Blue is undergoing an overhaul over at Blogsnot. And she's currently crafting a new site that will be launching in the near future. In the meantime, I'm happy to announce that Skye will continue to guest blog here at Ex-Donkey blog while she puts the finishing touches on her new home.

Also, the comment spam problem seems to be under control so the comment function has been re-enabled.

Thank you all for your patience. Now a rested, rejuvenated Ex-Donkey returns to the helm.

Locked and loaded.

Posted by: Gary at 07:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Welcome back, Gary!

Your return has been outed!

It's been fun and an honor to sit in and help guest-blog at Ex-Donkey Blog;
but your postings are sorely missed.

Hope your batteries are recharged!

We've got November Elections to win. Welcome back to the fight!

Posted by: Wordsmith at 10:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

One Nation Under AllahtofBullcrap!

A Washington Post article a week ago suggests that American Muslims are not as assimilated into mainstream American culture as we would think, or would like to think.

By Geneive Abdo
Sunday, August 27, 2006; Page B03

If only the Muslims in Europe -- with their hearts focused on the Islamic world and their carry-on liquids poised for destruction in the West -- could behave like the well-educated, secular and Americanizing Muslims in the United States, no one would have to worry.

So runs the comforting media narrative that has developed around the approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, who are often portrayed as well-assimilated and willing to leave their religion and culture behind in pursuit of American values and lifestyle. But over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California -- and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.

A new generation of American Muslims -- living in the shadow of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- is becoming more religious. They are more likely to take comfort in their own communities, and less likely to embrace the nation's fabled melting pot of shared values and common culture.

That's a shame. One would think that anyone coming to a country to adopt themselves to it, would in turn, adapt to it. A big problem for European nations has been their inability to assimilate Muslims into becoming French citizens, British citizens, etc., loyal to their adoptive countries. Placing loyalty to religion over loyalty to country is a problem when that particular religion is open to such interpretation as to endorse homicide bombings and the murder of nonbelievers.

Part of this is linked to the resurgence of Islam over the past several decades, a growth as visible in Western Europe and the United States as it is in Egypt and Morocco. But the Sept. 11 attacks also had the dual effect of making American Muslims feel isolated in their adopted country, while pushing them to rediscover their faith.

From schools to language to religion, American Muslims are becoming a people apart. Young, first-generation American Muslim women -- whose parents were born in Egypt, Pakistan and other Islamic countries -- are wearing head scarves even if their mothers had left them behind; increasing numbers of young Muslims are attending Islamic schools and lectures; Muslim student associations in high schools and at colleges are proliferating; and the role of the mosque has evolved from strictly a place of worship to a center for socializing and for learning Arabic and Urdu as well as the Koran.

The men and women I spoke to -- all mosque-goers, most born in the United States to immigrants -- include students, activists, imams and everyday working Muslims. Almost without exception, they recall feeling under siege after Sept. 11, with FBI agents raiding their mosques and homes, neighbors eyeing them suspiciously and television programs portraying Muslims as the new enemies of the West.

Ok, I am not Muslim, so maybe I can't relate. But being a hyphenated-American myself, I know the stinging barbs of racism. And personally, I do not see Muslims in this country being persecuted. You can dig up an incident here or there, yes; but those, I would say, are the exceptions to the rule. Does someone have statistics that show that I am wrong on this?

The President has repeatedly made it clear that this is not a war against peaceful Islamists. He has gone out of his way to make that point (sometimes to the consternation of those of us more critical of Islam and who are not required to nerfify our slings and arrows). When he uses the term "Islamic-fascists", why on earth is that an insult to Islamists who do not fit the definition? Our hypersensitivity on the topic of race drives me absolutely nuts!

Such feelings led them, they say, to adopt Islamic symbols -- the hijab , or head covering, for women and the kufi , or cap, for men -- as a defense mechanism. Many, such as Rehan, whom I met at a madrassa (religious school) in California with her husband, Ramy, also felt compelled to deepen their faith.

"After I covered, I changed," Rehan told me. "I felt I wanted to give people a good impression of Islam. I wanted people to know how happy I am to be Muslim." But not everyone understood, she said, recalling an incident in a supermarket in 2003: "The man next to me in the vegetable section said, 'You'd be much more beautiful without that thing on your head. It's demeaning to women.' " But to her the head scarf symbolized piety, not oppression.

Personally, I think it was classless and inappropriate for a stranger to presume as much, and say that to this woman. A head scarf is only oppressive if it is forced upon the wearer.

But what I don't understand is why this need to "rebel" and alienate oneself further from mainstream America? Why feel like YOU are under attack, because you share "a certain thing" in common with a group of crazed killers bent upon the destruction of you and I? After all, they are as much responsible for the mass killing of Muslims as any non-Muslim nation has been. What if I were Korean. Should I feel like my identity were under assault, because my government is at odds with Kim Jong Il and North Korea? Was it appropriate (not whether it violated his Constitutional Rights or not- it probably has) for Raed Jarrar to wear a "We will not be silent" t-shirt in Arabic and English (so those who supposedly hate "his kind" could understand his "eff-u" message of defiance) aboard a plane, say, right on the heals of a foiled plot by Korean extremists to hijack and kill passengers aboard planes? I suppose so, if there was any proof that my government and my fellow Americans were treating me like the enemy. But that is not the case we have here, as far as I can see it. What people like Jarrar end up doing, is just reinforcing the perceived alienation of Muslims in this country, by segregating themselves off from said country. They bring about the very thing which they fear and are fighting so hard against.

Do you want to know how to dispell the negative image Islam is currently experiencing? By not being so hypersensitive and hyper-defensive; by not identifying with the those terrorizing the world in the name of your religion. That inadvertently happens when you feel the need to rationalize their actions and think that you yourself are under assault when you are not. Identify with those of us who are fighting the jihadists, and you will give more credibility to the "Islam is a religion of peace" message of yours. Do what Irshad Manji and Nonie Darwish are doing. They give a better name and do greater service to Islam than the Raed Jarrars of the Islamic community do.

A group of young college-educated women at the Dix mosque in Dearborn, Mich., described the challenges many Muslims face as they carve out their identity in the United States. I spoke with them in the winter of 2004, after they had been to the mosque one Sunday for a halaqa (a study circle) focused on integrating faith and daily life. They were in their twenties: Hayat, a psychologist; Ismahan, a computer scientist; and Fatma, a third-grade teacher.

Hayat said veiling was easier for her than it had been for her sister, 10 years her senior, because Hayat had more Muslim peers when she reached high school and felt far less pressure to conform to American ways.

This is an interesting paradox to me. One of the things that we, as Americans, value highly is the freedom of individual expression and non-conformity. We sort of celebrate those who "stick out from the crowd", unlike, say, the Japanese, who believe that a nail that sticks out needs to be hammered back into place. But what happens when the very thing you are embracing, in its strict fundamental tenets, is incompatible with "the American way"?

When she went on to the University of Michigan, she was surrounded for the first time by young Muslims who dared to show pride in their religion in a non-Muslim setting.

Ismahan recalled similar experiences. In elementary school, she had tried to fit in. As an adult, though, "I know I don't have to fit in," she said. "I don't think Muslims have to assimilate. We are not treated like Americans. At work, I get up from my desk and go to pray. I thought I would face opposition from my boss. Even before I realized he didn't mind, I thought, 'I have a right to be a Muslim, and I don't have to assimilate.' "

She complains "we are not treated like Americans" and says she has a right not to assimilate? It's a strange fix, because that very attitude of defiance is rather American; and yet, it's like shooting oneself in the foot, to reject assimilating into the very culture that gives you the freedom to have that defiant freedom. Pride in ones cultural roots and heritage is one thing; segregating yourself off from mainstream America and carrying a chip on your shoulder is to disassociate yourself from being integrated and accepted as American. We all, to one degree or another, take pride in where we or our forefathers came from; but we don't walk around saying, "I'm an Italian Catholic first, American second", "I have German pride; not American pride". If we all did that, we would not be "One nation" but many nations; we'd be a bunch of mixed up people tossed around like ingredients in a salad bowl, distinguishing the differences between us, rather than embracing a commonality. We'd be the United Nations of America; and that's a very scary thought. Nations within a nation, identifying only with those who share our skin color or religious beliefs.

Fatma described the mosque as central to her future: "What made me sane during years of public high school," she said, "was coming to the halaqa every Sunday." Fatma was also quick to distinguish herself from other young Muslim women who embrace American mores. "Some Muslims do anything to fit in. They drink. They date. My biggest fear is that I might assimilate to the American lifestyle so much that my modesty goes out the window."

So you fear having your values tested, and being too weak-will not to give in to your wants and desires? This isn't unique to Muslims. Anyone of strong religious character will feel the same; and those immigrants from more conservative cultures than ours, also feel the challenge. Quite simply put, we Americans put up with our more liberally-minded citizens....even when they're being morally decadent idiots.

Imam Zaid Shakir -- who teaches at San Francisco's Zaytuna Institute, America's only true madrassa -- refers to such young Muslims as the "rejectionist generation." They are rejectionist, he says, because they turn their backs not only on absolutist religious interpretations, but also on America's secular ways. Many of these young American Muslims look to Shakir (and to celebrated Zaytuna founder Hamza Yusuf) for guidance on how to live pious lives in the United States.

I spent several days at one of the institute's "mobile madrassas," this one in San Jose, and watched hundreds of young Muslim professionals sit on cushioned folding chairs and listen intently as Yusuf delivered his lecture. "Everywhere I go, I see Muslims," he told them. "Go to the gas station and the airport. Muslims are present in the United States, and that was not true 20 years ago. There are more Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam [Islamic countries, or literally the House of Islam] than ever. So we have to be strategic in our thinking, because people who are our enemies are strategic in their thinking."

The "enemies" Yusuf referred to that day were not non-Muslims, but rather those who use Islam as a rationale for violence. For the students at this madrassa and for many Muslims I interviewed, their strategy focuses on public displays of their faith.

It sounds like the same kind of approach as the one used by Raed Jarrar, daring people to call him "unpatriotic". A show of "Muslim pride". Again, the approach taken by those like Irshad Manji will do more for establishing Islam's image in a positive light, than taking on an air of defiance and naming your football team, the "Mujahadeens" or "Jihadists".

Being ambassadors of Islam is daring behavior when you consider that American Muslims live in a country where so many people are ignorant of -- if not hostile to -- their faith.

Being a good "ambassador of Islam" should entail one to go after the radicals and militants who are killing in the name of your religion; not go on the attack toward those who are fighting the Islamic terrorists and jihadist thugs.

In a Gallup poll this year, when U.S. respondents were asked what they admire about the Muslim world, the most common response was "nothing" (33 percent); the second most common was "I don't know" (22 percent).

Despite contemporary public opinion -- or perhaps because of it -- Muslim Americans consider Islam their defining characteristic, beyond any national identity. In this way, their experience in the United States resembles that of their co-religionists in Europe, where mosques are also growing, Islamic schools are being built, and practicing the faith is the center of life, particularly for the young generation.

And seeing how you are given the freedom to do all this, unopposed, how exactly are you feeling persecuted and alienated? You are alienating yourselves! That's the problem.

In Europe and the United States, young Muslims are unifying around popular imams they believe understand the challenges they face in Western societies; these leaders include Yusuf in the United States and Amer Khaled, an Egyptian-born imam who lives in Britain. Thousands of young Muslims attend their lectures.

In my years of interviews, I found few indications of homegrown militancy among American Muslims. Indeed, thus far, they have proved they can compete economically with other Americans. Although the unemployment rate for Muslims in Britain is far higher than for most other groups, the average annual income of a Muslim household surpasses that of average American households. Yet, outside the workplace, Muslims retreat into the comfort zone of their mosques and Islamic schools.

It is too soon to say where the growing alienation of American Muslims will lead, but it seems clear that the factors contributing to it will endure. U.S. foreign policy persists in dividing Muslim and Western societies, making it harder still for Americans to realize that there is a difference between their Muslim neighbor and the plotter in London or the kidnapper in Baghdad.

I disagree that it is U.S. foreign policy that persists in the division. The division is in the misperception that the U.S. has done anything against Muslims, on the grounds that they are Muslims.

It is the political correctness disease and the multicultural idiocy that has robbed us of our common sense. It has poisoned the minds of immigrants into the false notion that the way to be a good American is to preserve your cultural and religious tenets, 100% with zero attempts at integration and adaptation to the core values and customs of the western country to which you are now calling "home". Unfortunately, it's those very same western values and customs of ours that enables this "non-assimilation" to be tolerated. Instead of a melting pot, the multiculturalists have confused the welcoming concept of America, and have instead been tossing and stirring a salad bowl approach, where all cultures are given equal status; and segregation and the preservation of one's foreign identity is encouraged as being "American". It is the notion that all cultures are equal. It is the same kind of mentality that will see the creation of multi-language voting ballots not as a practicality and a courtesy, but as a given right and a necessity. That America accomodate immigrants, and not the other way around. That our Judeo-Christian roots that founded this modern nation, be minimized, giving equal footing and equal treatment to the cultural values and beliefs of other nations....some of which are the very enablers for providing fertile grounds for genocidal regimes to gain a stranglehold and for economic quagmires to take root and flourish.

If anyone would care to send an e-mail to the author of the article, it's geneive.abdo@geneiveabdo.com

Geneive Abdo is the liaison for the Alliance of Civilizations at the United Nations and author of "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11" (Oxford).

Check out Gayle's post:

Muslims in our Military

Posted by: Wordsmith at 06:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2857 words, total size 18 kb.

Crikey.....

Steve Irwin, naturalist, environmentalist and TV presenter, was born on February 22, 1962. He died on September 4, 2006, aged 44.

STEVE IRWIN, who has died during underwater filming aged 44 after a stingray barb pierced his heart, was known through his documentaries on the cable TV channel Animal Planet to some 500 million people in more than 120 countries. As the exuberant, golden-haired, khaki-wearing and apparently fearless Crocodile Hunter, he got very close to — and even wrestled — numerous apex predators. His unscripted narration was punctuated with “Crikey!” and “ Look at this beauty!” Many called him a thrill seeker, but he called himself a wildlife warrior. He was in fact a highly knowledgeable natural historian, whose mission was to educate people by enthusing them. “If you can’t get wilds into people’s hearts”, he said, “then we haven’t got a hope in heck of saving them — because people don’t want to save something they don’t know.”

Irwin owned land in Australia, Vanuatu, Fiji and the US. He was a fan of Essendon in the Australian Football League, and loved mixed martial arts competitions. He supported the conservative Liberal Party, and once described the Prime Minister, John Howard, as the “greatest leader in the entire world”. Howard returned the favour on hearing of Irwin’s death, calling him “the genuine article . . . he took risks, he enjoyed life, but he brought immense joy to millions of people, particularly to children”. Among Irwin’s legacies is Elseya irwini, a new type of snapping turtle he discovered on the coast of Queensland. He was named Tourism Export of the Year in 2004.

Condolences can be left on Animal Planet's website

Posted by: Skye at 04:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

ABC's "The Path to 9/11"

But what really caught my attention was when I clicked on a link on my sitemeter that showed all these liberal blogs in hysterics over it. Then I knew this was a gem worth checking into.-The Chatterbox Chronicles

When anything gets under the skin of the libs, that's a good enough endorsement for me to support it. I first heard about this over at Hugh Hewitt. Despite the pressure on ABC by the pro-Clinton Left, Hewitt doubts there will be any last minute editing changes because there have been a sufficient number of reviewers who have already seen it; and to make changes now under political pressure by the liberal Left, would have a negative backlash.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 02:14 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 11:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 0 words, total size 1 kb.